WASHINGTON
– It was close, but late Friday, June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed the highly controversial H.R.2998
(originally H.R. 2454): The American Clean Energy and Security Act
(ACES) -- called informally the “Waxman-Markey Global Warming
Bill” after its cosponsors Henry Waxman, Calif., and Ed Markey,
Mass., both Democrats. The bill now awaits action by the Senate.

This
was the first time either house of Congress had approved legislation
designed to curb “greenhouse gases” that many believe contribute
to “global warming” and climate change. The vote was 212-219.
Forty-four Democrats voted No, and without the Yes-votes of eight Republicans
it would have gone down in defeat.

President
Obama hailed the historic passage, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., who led the charge in ramming the bill through the House,
determined to secure approval by July 4.

“We
passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future,”
Pelosi boasted at a press conference following the roll call.

And
in a derisive slap at the grassroots opposition that bombarded
congressional offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, she declared:
“For some it was a difficult vote because the agents of the status
quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts
and here [in D.C.], but [the representatives] withstood that.”

It would definitely be “transformational.” Waxman-Markey
is arguably the most sweeping, far-reaching measure Congress has ever
considered in terms of its impact on the U.S. economy, industry and
standard of living – and the most costly.

House
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “the biggest
job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.”

Myron
Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy
at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI), describes
it as “a massive tax hike that would vastly expand the federal
government’s power over the economy. Indeed, [Waxman-Markey] would
be the largest tax increase in world history, [would] transfer vast
wealth from consumers to big-business special interests.

“And
it would put Washington in charge of people’s lives in a way not
seen since the Second World War – which was the last time Americans
needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities,”
he warned.

Yet despite its magnitude, the Democrat-controlled House voted to allow
just three hours of debate for the bill itself, plus half an hour for
a 309-page Manager’s Amendment (H.R. 2998) by Waxman that was
dropped in the hopper at 3 a.m. that morning.

Nobody
had read the entire measure, let alone the amendment, when they voted:
copies weren’t even available. Moreover, it had grown from about
950 pages to an eyeball-glazing 1,510 in the five days before the vote
(that’s including the amendment).

“Unfortunately,
this is the New World Order,” said Andrew Moylan, Director of
Government Affairs at the National
Taxpayers Union (NTU). “Where we have bills that are written
in secret, are debated in no time at all, get passed into law –
and we find out what little cookies are in there for us after the fact.”

(For
lists of some of the hundreds of “cookies” in the Manager’s
Amendment click here
and here.)

The
High Cost of Going Green

The
goal of Waxman-Markey is to decrease the level of carbon dioxide and
five other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. These gases
occur naturally (CO2, in particular, is necessary for plant life), but
levels are said to be increased by the burning of carbon-based fossil
fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) during energy production that provides
85 percent of U.S. electricity.

That
increase is alleged to contribute to “global warming” –
though this is widely disputed, as is the theory that there’s
any global warming at all. Contrary to claims of Waxman-Markey supporters,
such as former Vice President Al Gore, the scientific community is divided
over whether there is global warming and if there is, what causes it
and what to do about it.

The
bill mandates that 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from “renewable”
sources. Electric and gas utilities, refineries, cement plants, steel
foundries and other companies would be required to lower the amount
of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks 17 percent below 2005 levels by
2020, and down to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

This
will be done through an elaborate permitting process called cap-and-trade
that requires companies to have one emission permit – in effect,
a ration coupon -- for every ton of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks.
The government will set a cap for the maximum amount of CO2 emission,
and ratchet the cap down over time -- in theory, forcing companies to
invest in lower-carbon technologies such as wind and solar.

Critics
predict huge hikes in the cost of lighting, heating, air cooling, and
transportation – any activity that depends on electricity or gasoline
– plus increases in the price of food and consumer goods and serious
unemployment. Overall costs are estimated to range anywhere from $2
trillion to $9 trillion.

“We’re
talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars per year in added
costs to energy,” Moylan told NewsWithViews. “That’s
something that people are not going to have a choice about if they want
to keep the lights on, drive to work and get the kids to school.”

Just
before the vote the Congressional Budget Office released figures purporting
to show that the cost to the average household would be only $175 a
year by 2020. An earlier estimate by CBO had set the tab at $1,600 a
year.

Except
for this conveniently released report by the CBO, there are virtually
no one is claiming that Waxman-Markey is going to be cheap – not
even the president for whom it’s a top priority measure.

Obama:
“Electricity Rates Will Skyrocket”

In
a famous interview with editors of the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan.
17, 2008), then-Senator Obama admitted the price of electricity would
go up. Way up. In his words:

“Under
my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily
skyrocket … because I’m capping greenhouse gases -- coal
power plants, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were,
whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.
That will cost money; they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.”

Obama
further explained how it would be necessary to persuade the American
people that although there would be “some increase” in electricity
rates, “over the long term -- because of combinations of more
efficient energy usage, and changing light bulbs, more efficient appliances,
but also technology in proving how we can produce clean energy -- the
economy will benefit.”

He
did not promise that rates would eventually come down or even that it
would be possible to develop the necessary technology. He only said
that the economy would “benefit” and the argument must be
made “persuasively enough” for Americans to accept the plan.

At
the Heritage Foundation’s
Center for Data Analysis, researchers crunched numbers and came up with
some specifics about the first 23 years of a project that’s planned
to go on for the next 90 years.

According
to Heritage findings, under Waxman-Markey the cost of electricity will
soar 90 percent between 2012 and 2035; gasoline prices will rise 58
percent; and residential natural gas, 55 percent. A family of four can
expect its annual energy bill to be raised by $1,241. (Figures are adjusted
for inflation, and assume a 36 percent cut in energy use by consumers
trying to adjust to escalating costs.)

That
$1,241 yearly energy bill is just the direct increase in energy prices.
As energy prices go up, the costs of making consumer goods will follow
and businesses will pass these along in the form of higher prices. From
the Heritage
Foundation's analysis:

“As
the higher production costs ripple through the economy, household
pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the direct and indirect
energy tax impacts have been added up, family-of-four costs will rise
by $2,979 per year on the average over the 2023-2035 timeframe. In
2035 alone, the cost is $4,609.”

With
the slowing of the economy, unemployment will go up on average 1,145,000
a year in lost jobs, with peak years seeing unemployment of over 2.4
million jobs gone.

Then
there’s the national debt: “By 2035 Waxman-Markey will have
driven the national debt 26 percent above what it would be without the
legislation, and that represents an additional $28,728 per person, or
$114,915 for a family of four.”

“Worse
than the increased cost of energy, perhaps, is that the Waxman-Markey
bill will essentially result in artificial limits on energy production
and, ultimately, electricity rationing,” Milloy
predicts. “The bill will create a permanent energy crisis.”

This
will necessarily lead to restrictions on personal activities. “A
nation’s standard of living is ultimately based upon the use of
energy, be it for work or play,” writes naturalist William
Hunt, in a piece for NewsWithViews.

Cooking,
heating one’s house, mowing the lawn, cooking, driving to the
grocery store, going to the beach on the weekend – “All
of these represent freedoms, both nationally and personally. The ability
to get into a car and drive is an incredible freedom that most of the
world does not have,” Hunt observes.

If
the price of gasoline is artificially increased 58 percent, low-income
families and individuals would be hard-pressed to pay for it and forced
to change their driving habits, perhaps giving up driving altogether.

“These,
and indeed all other measures suggested by politicians, regulators and
NGOs to deal with global warming [cap and trade, carbon taxes] are about
controlling what you do with your life by controlling energy,”
says
Hunt. “All such things do is to raise the price consumers
have to pay for basic needs. They harm the poor most of all by hitting
them by raising the costs for basic costs like heat, light, water, sewer,
food, gasoline for commuting to work, and every consumer good—
clothes, soap, cars, everything.”

Waxman-Markey
vs. the Laws of Thermodynamics

“What
they’re doing is raising the cost of traditional energy so high
that it would be feasible to invest in alternate technologies,”
says Andrew Moylan.

“Today,
alternative technologies – as great as they may seem to people
– are very expensive. It’s not that people desperately want
to destroy the environment that they’re not investing in them.
They don’t invest in them because they’re extremely expensive.
So if you raise the cost of traditional energy so high that it makes
other technologies more palatable in terms of cost, there’s going
to be more investment in those.”

Said
Rattie: “Why has my generation failed to develop wind and solar?
Because our energy choices are ruthlessly ruled, not by political judgments,
but by the immutable laws of thermodynamics. In engineer-speak, turning
diffused sources of energy such as photons in sunlight or the kinetic
energy in wind requires massive investment to concentrate that energy
into a form that’s usable on any meaningful scale.

“What’s
more, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always
shine. Unless or until there’s a major breakthrough in high-density
electricity storage – a problem that has confounded scientists
for more than 100 years – wind and solar can never be relied upon
to provide base load power.”

The
Fundamental Question

And
in the end, will it be worth it?

“That’s
the issue,” said Moylan. “I’m no climate expert, but
the folks who are say that even if everything goes according to their
plan – which is unlikely – global temperatures might be
reduced by one-tenth of one degree by the year 2050.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

“I
guess that’s the fundamental question: Is one-tenth of one degree
reduction in temperature under the best of circumstances worth $2 trillion
in costs? I would say no. I would hope that most rational people say
the answer is no. But it seems symbolism has been elevated above science
in the debate.”

If
the price of gasoline is artificially increased 58 percent, low-income
families and individuals would be hard-pressed to pay for it and forced
to change their driving habits, perhaps giving up driving altogether.